The standard advice, when someone says they’re looking for a good cheap car, is “Corolla, Camry, Civic, or Accord.” And there’s nothing wrong with any of those – except that they’re the obvious choices, and they’re kinda boring. We, as gearheads, choose to walk a different path, and seek out something that gets the blood pumping a bit more.
Yesterday, we looked at two convertibles geared more towards relaxed summertime cruising than tearing up the track. Both had automatic transmissions, and yeah, that’s a disappointment, but for those particular cars, not a dealbreaker, at least to me. The vote was reasonably close, but in the end, the BMW took the win over our own S.W. Gossin’s Nissan Z.
I have some familiarity with the mechanical bits of both of these cars; my wife has owned both a 2005 BMW 325i and a VQ35-powered Infiniti QX4 in recent years. The VQ was a pain in the ass to work on, but it needed a tenth as much work as the BMW. And parts for it were half the price. I’ve never been too crazy about the 350Z’s styling, but I think it’s by far the better car.
Now then: let’s think outside the box a little, and take a look at a couple of inexpensive beaters that won’t bore you to death. They’ve been around the block a few times, but they’ve both got some life left in them. Here they are.
2005 Saab 9-3 2.0t – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.0-liter DOHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Taft, TX
Odometer reading: 260,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Every time I feature a Saab here, it wins. Seriously. I don’t think one has lost yet. We’ll see if that streak holds with this one, which has far less Saab in it than some others. This is the second and final generation of the 9-3, based on GM’s Epsilon platform and powered by an Ecotec four-cylinder. It still has some of the Saab quirks, like the ignition switch in the center console, but its quirkiness is watered down and sanitized, like a chain restaurant or Van Halen with Sammy Hagar up front.
The Ecotec engine in question displaces 2.0 liters and is turbocharged, though there were two versions, and I’m not sure which one this one has. If I understand right, since it has a lower-case “t” on the back instead of an upper-case “T,” it’s the low-pressure version making 173 horsepower, as opposed to the high-pressure turbo that puts out 210. Either way, it channels its power to the front wheels through a five-speed manual. The engine was replaced about 120,000 miles ago, and it has a brand-new clutch. It runs and drives great, according to the seller.
The interior is holding up well for 260,000 miles; there are some cracks in the leather, but nothing terrible. The interior is the one place GM didn’t interfere with Saab, and we should all be thankful for that. This could easily have been a Chevy Malibu interior with different badges; this is way nicer. The seller says the car has “new AC components,” which I assume means it’s nice and cool in there on hot days.
It’s missing some clearcoat outside, and it has a few bumps and bruises, but overall it looks pretty good. The ad says this car is blue, but it looks gray to me; maybe because of the electric-blue Mustang parked next to it.
And speaking of electric-blue Mustangs…
2005 Ford Mustang Deluxe – $2,800
Engine/drivetrain: 4.0-liter OHC V6, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Roseville, CA
Odometer reading: 240,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The family motto of my wife’s Scottish ancestors is Sero sed serio, “Late but in earnest.” At the Battle of Ancrum Moor, in 1545, they didn’t engage the invading English forces until late in the day – but proceeded to clean house. That motto could also apply to the S197-chassis Ford Mustang. The retro-inspired design craze had been in full swing for several years by the time Ford introduced this car – but it was not messing around. Ford’s designers mashed the nostalgia button hard and held it down to create this car. And to their credit, it worked.
As has always been the case with the Mustang, the base model eschews V8 power in favor of something tamer, in this case a 4.0-liter Cologne V6 with single overhead camshafts. In contrast to the weak four-cylinder base engine of the Mustang II and Fox-body days, this one puts out 210 horsepower, more than a whole decade’s worth of optional V8s. This engine has a reputation for timing chain trouble, and due to its design, replacing them is a bear. But this one has covered 240,000 miles, which indicates that it either isn’t an issue with this particular one, or the chains have been replaced. It drives the rear axle through a good old Borg-Warner T5 five-speed stick, and the seller says it runs and drives great.
Even the seat upholstery in this car echoes the ’60s original design, as does the shape of the dashboard and steering wheel. Unfortunately, this one is rougher than a lot of ’60s originals I’ve seen; the seat bolster is worn through, the door panels are sagging, and the dash has a weird woodgrain applique that I’ve never seen before, and it’s not in good shape. However, the seller says everything in there works, including the air conditioning.
Outside, it’s shiny and blue, with a couple of dents and paint chips, and some more aftermarket crap stuck on. The louvers on the back window are a throwback that looks out of place; I’d deposit them in the nearest Dumpster and not look back. Ditto the silly chrome trim around the taillights. Otherwise, it’s not bad looking at all, especially for the price.
You could take the safe route and go for a nice beige Camry, but with options like these around, I’m not sure why you would. Any old cheap car is going to need a little maintenance, even a Toyota, so why not choose something a little livelier? Today, your choices are a turbocharged Euro sedan or a red-blooded American pony car, both with manual gearboxes. Which one would you take as a cheap beater?
Saab.
Sorry.
I think the mustang. It’s still my favorite generation. Lots of stick on things to remove but that era of Ford tends to hold up better then that era of gm. Especially the interiors. That is a pretty decent looking Saab though. But that gm plastic that is unobtainium in decent condition
??
A chain restaurant with Sammy Hagar up front would be brilliantly quirky.
What’s wrong with Van Hagar 5150/OU812? Van Cherone on the other hand ……
And Mustang, but the Saab interior is quite nice. Wood contact paper removal is better than repainting
Well since you didn’t post anything about the Camry I went with the Saab. I have just seen too many Mustangs. In fact I have seen so many Mustangs that they are the boring car even next to a Camry.
Despite the possible parts availability issue with the Saab, that’s my pick. Having owned two, they are well balanced and a blast to drive. The Mustang would be nice too, but it’s too far gone for my taste.
Friend across the street has the same 2005 Mustang, owned for 15 years, close to 350K miles. After close to 10K spent of repairs in that time frame.
A good friend has an example, with the same V6 and has had at least a dozen thermostat housings replaced. They are plastic and tend to crack, or even leak when fresh out of the box.
There is also a crazy water leak near the dash area. Been ‘repaired’ at the dealer many times. Repair is usually good until the next rain storm.
How do I know? Because he is not a car guy, thus I get the call each and every time some shit breaks.
Crack pipe here.
No thank you.
Saab always wins over Fix Or Repair Daily/Found On Road Dead. I do like the blue on the Mustang though. It’s great that the Saab has had an engine replacement AND AC parts replaced? A lot of $ was spent there…AC is definitely nice to have in TX, obviously. I will thoroughly enjoy cruising in this Saab(story) Ha ha
I’m right at 50/50 with this. The Mustang looks great.. outside. The Saab looks bad, outside. I ended up going Saab, because I do believe whoever keep the interior that nice likely did replace the engine and clutch.
But I think both are good deals and would be worth looking at.
I hate the Mustang’s dash, however it can be undone with some degreaser and goo gone. I’m not that concerned about the seat bolsters.
The Saab is more practical and looks better inside but I’d rather undo the interior bits on the Mustang than a re-spray on the Saab.
I shall of course take the Saab over a Mustang with what appear to be the AC vents from my wife’s old 999cc Fiesta
“The louvers on the back window are a throwback that looks out of place; I’d deposit them in the nearest Dumpster and
notbe able to look back.” (There, fixed it.)I’m surprised the vote is as close as it is! That Mustang looked rough. Really rough. The SAAB’s clearcoat is sad, but otherwise I think it looks pretty good.
I bought a used ’88 SAAB 9000 Turbo in 1997. I thought it looked very cool, and it treated me pretty well. I sold it with 200K miles on it and still ran fine. Besides maintenance, I think the only thing I had to fix was the cabin temperature sensor tied into the HVAC.
And FWD is a better option than RWD for me up in the PNW. But it’s nice that they’re both manuals!
Also, I am a little confused by how SAAB badged these. I know that SAAB = Saab Automobile AB. The badge on the hood/bonnet was SAAB in all caps. Sometimes with SCANIA on the lower half. So, maybe the car is a Saab but the company that used to make them was SAAB.
Saab for me. More practical, a bit cheaper, better fuel economy. But it’s really a tossup between the two.
Mustang for me. I have that identical engine in a 2004 Sport Trac. On the Sport Trac forums, it seems once the engine gets beyond about 150k, it will be good to 300 or more. The problem isn’t the timing chains but the plastic timing chain guides, which some bean counter decided would be a good idea. The timing chain tensioners wear out so that at startup there’s a little rattle of the chain against the plastic. Enough of this and the plastic guide disintegrates, followed rapidly by by the engine.
Prevention of this is relatively straightforward, regular oil changes and replace the tensioners after 100k or so.
The engine has plenty of power to haul the truck around and up the CO mountains. The Mustang is 1000lbs lighter, it should fly..
Both aren’t great options, but I’m going SAAB because 260k on a 4.0L SOHC Ford is just asking for trouble, yes, more trouble vs. the SAAB.
I bought a $2500 9-3 earlier this year, and yeah it’s been pretty easy to work on – but the real advantage is that every time I take it to a Cars and Coffee, like seven cool and interesting people come up and start talking to me about the one they used to have.
Good god that mustang interior is grim. Plus, no between seat starting sequence. . . like a gad dang jet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SAAAAAABBBB
The vast expanse of plastic wood inside the Mustang is more than enough to kill it for me, all else being equal. I’ve driven Saab 9-3s of this era and though this one would be much more appealing if it were a hatchback, they drive fine. Zippy enough and Saab enough to appeal. A no brainer.
Hm. After having kept a GM-era Saab going out of some twisted sense of loyalty and finally giving up on it, I wonder about that 9-3. Has it finally worn its owner down, even after replacing a bunch of A/C components? I’d imagine there’s some straw that broke the camel’s back under that hood somewhere…. I don’t like Mustangs though. Devil you know, I suppose.
I was initially all set to go with the Mustang as I like that particular application of retro styling and it’s RWD vs. FWD. But that weird wood grain crap on the dash stopped me in my tracks. After seeing a comment or two regarding the ease of getting repairs done on the GM-Saab, I decided it would be better to take the risk that something expensive would happen to it vs. the risk that I would immediately take a hammer to that Mustang dashboard because I just couldn’t help myself.
The base 9-3 is a great “slow car fast” sort of car. Good handling, with great steering feel, good brakes and pleasantly neutral handling for a front-driver, light weight (maybe 3200# in that trim), will happily take a beating and still keep you safe, even by today’s crash test standards, in The Big Crash. They’re easy to wrench on, parts are more available than you’d expect–even new OE bits, and there’s amazing enthusiast support for the cars out there, even for DIY ECU cloning and tuning. One of the three 9-3s in my own fleet right now is at 280k miles and climbing quickly; In the six years we’ve had it, it’s never needed anything more than maintenance items in the 200+k miles we’ve put on it.
Definitely second this – I’ve had two of the “2.0T” manual 9-3’s of this generation and they both held up very well and made it over 200k miles with minimal work, and were a lot more capable and fun to drive than you’d think. My inlaws still own 2 as well (different ones, both 2-liters but autos) and they’re still going although one of them is pretty rough now at probably near 250k miles, and both have had the front subframe rust problem.
How did SWG’s Nissan not win yesterday? What kind of person votes against the home team?!
That and the fact that you’d know you’re buying from a human with a conscience.
That and you know it was wrenched on right.